from the good-luck-with-that dept

The old guard in Hollywood, so frightened of an internet they don't understand, tends to be rather transparently buffoonish in its strategies to try to break the internet. For a few years, the MPAA was totally focused on a "three strikes" strategy -- believing that if people were getting kicked off the internet, that it would lead them to stop file sharing and go back to paying large sums of money for bad movies. That plan failed miserably. The followup idea was even worse: known as full site blocking, the idea was to convince countries to pass laws that would force ISPs, search engines, domain registrars and others to completely block access not just to infringing content, but to entire sites that the legacy copyright industries deemed "bad."

This was always problematic on a few different levels. First, the entertainment industry has a rather horrible track record of declaring some new innovation "bad" and "illegal" when it shows up on the scene, only much later realizing that the "bad" or "illegal" thing is actually exactly what consumers are looking for. In the past, the industry has attacked radio, television, the VCR, the photocopier, the DVR, the MP3 player and YouTube (among many other things). Giving Hollywood a full on veto for any new technology, before it's had a chance to grow, thrive and show how useful it can be, seems like a great way to kill off innovation. Yet, that's what Hollywood wants. Second, the concept of site blocking itself is incompatible with some of the very fundamentals of the internet. It breaks DNS, it creates big security problems, and it has tremendous collateral damage (not that Hollywood gives a shit about that).

The original site blocking plan was to pass SOPA in the US, which had site blocking provisions. It was seen as a slam dunk easy win by Hollywood, until suddenly, it wasn't (thanks to the internet speaking up loudly). But, similar strategies have worked better in other countries, as courts have often ordered ISPs to block certain sites, often with little review and almost no due process. Yet, as we discovered thanks to the Sony Hack last year, the MPAA is still 100% focused on figuring out ways to implement full site blocking, even as its internal discussion admits it has no idea about the technological feasibility of it. Instead, it's pushing on a few different fronts, from trying to get states Attorneys General involved to abusing the process at the International Trade Commission to "block" sites "at the border."

However, it appears that the latest strategy is just to file a bunch of bogus DMCA takedown notices to Google on the top level domain, rather than on specific content. It's no secret that the MPAA has been asking Google to implement full site blocking for quite some time -- even though doing so wouldn't actually help (because instead of the sites, you'd just get people telling you how to get to those sites or you'd get even sketchier sites). TorrentFreak noticed that the MPAA issued a bunch of questionable DMCA notices on top level domains recently, nearly all of which Google rightly rejected. The law is pretty clear that you have to be identifying the specific work to be taken down, rather than just generally pointing to a site.

The MPAA knows this, which makes the sending of a bunch of top level domains... bizarre. (TorrentFreak also points out that the MPAA may have even sent its own mpaa.org domain in a DMCA notice, but there's a decent chance that that's just someone playing a prank). The decision to file such clearly bogus DMCA notices, from an organization that is so totally focused on site blocking and which has large groups of lawyers looking for every angle to bring in full site blocking... suggests that this isn't just the MPAA getting lazy. Instead, it may be part of a plan to try to set up a test case, in which the MPAA sues over getting Google to remove an entire domain, based solely on a takedown (or series of takedowns) on that top level domain. If so, that would be an astoundingly stupid ploy -- one that the MPAA would have a high likelihood of losing. But perhaps desperate times at the MPAA call for desperate measures. Of course, we're still wondering when the folks over at the MPAA will get desperate enough to focus on giving people what they want, rather than treating them all as criminals.

from the and-the-answer-is-'none.'-none-more-stupid. dept

Germany-based Total Wipes -- infringement cop to the stars (who don't care how idiotic their representation makes them appear) -- is still pursuing its unstated motto of "Quantität über Qualität." Why send targeted requests when you can just dump a bunch of unrelated URLs into a DMCA takedown request and let Google sort it all out?

‘Protecting’ an album called “Cigarettes” on Mona Records, Total Wipes sent Google a notice containing not a single infringing link. Unbelievably one of the URLs targeted an article on how to use PGP on the Mac. It was published by none other than the EFF.

You'll notice that 'protecting' is surrounded by scare quotes, as should be anything Total Wipes "pursues" with its misfiring shotgun of a "business model." This particular takedown request appears to have achieved maximum stupidity with its 55 swings of the URL, none of which make contact. But it gets so much worse.

Going after alleged pirates of the album “In To The Wild – Vol.7″ on Aborigeno Music, Total Wipes offer their pièce de résistance, the veritable jewel in their crown. The notice, which covers 95 URLs, targets no music whatsoever. Instead it tries to ruin the Internet by targeting the download pages of some of the most famous online companies around.

A look at Total Wipes' "profile" at Google's Transparency Report shows the company has an appalling hit rate. It may actually have paying clients, but they're barely being served. If Google wasn't compelled to treat every incoming request as legitimate, in order to avoid further condemnation and/or potential Congressional action, it would have booted this farcical "music group" long ago.

Our carefully own created script uses the info you provide to deeply scan a vast range of IP networks, search engines, social sites, and other infringing locations for illegal instances of your content. Following a large group of data, our internal spider's scripts identify all links as valid or not, beginning the removal process. A consistently action of removing illegal instances of your content from all platforms drives higher sales.

If you manage to work your way past the broken, secondhand English, you're left with things like these:

If someone could just introduce a little bit of evidence to back up this frequent assertion, that would be great. Providing legal alternatives that are reasonably priced and easy to use drives sales better than stumbling around the internet on your "own created spider," asking Google to remove multiple instances of non-infringement. Artists who have willingly associated with Total Wipes' inadvertent argument for harsher bogus takedown sanctions aren't doing themselves any favors. In their names, Total Wipes is repeatedly driving its anti-piracy clown car up to Google's door and unloading takedown after takedown loaded with more misses than hits.

from the storm-the-bastille dept

As its plan to completely shatter the support it received recently by attacking the very same concept of free speech its enemies declared war upon with terrorist attacks on a parody magazine not so many weeks back, the French government's ability to be laughable and simultaneously dangerous never ceases to amaze. What at once looked to be rather punctuated attacks on opinions and social media, and even cable news (which I consider a common enemy but for vastly different reasons) has now since devolved into the kind of massive overreaction against a third-party target that is, dare I say, quite American in nature. Apparently no longer content with the plan to police the ever-dangerous internet themselves, the French government has suddenly and, it must be conceded, shockingly announced that it now has veto power over the internet, requiring ISPs to censor sites at its whim. And, because cynicism is practically the secret sauce in these kinds of things, they've laced their claims of "combating terrorism" via censorship powers with a dash of "preventing child pornography" to boot.

A new decree that went into effect today allows the French government to block websites accused of promoting terrorism and publishing child pornography, without seeking a court order. Under the new rules, published last week by France's Ministry of the Interior, internet service providers (ISPs) must take down offending websites within 24 hours of receiving a government order. French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve says the decree is critical to combating terrorism, but civil rights groups say it gives the government dangerously broad powers to suppress free speech.

The decree implements two provisions from two laws — an anti-child pornography law passed in 2011 and an anti-terror law passed late last year. A department of the French national police will be responsible for identifying the sites to be blocked, with the suspected terror-related sites subject to review by an anti-terrorism branch. An administrator from the CNIL, France's independent data protection organization, will be charged with overseeing the process. Once a site is blocked, its page will be replaced with an explanation of why the government took it down. In the case of child pornography pages, the text will also include a recommendation to seek medical help.

Now, anyone reading this site already knows why anointing a government with these kinds of powers, whether by the excuse of child pornography or via the far more mangled conflation of speech and terrorism, is inherently problematic. We should simply be able to trot out examples of governments declaring non-offending sites as falling under these kinds of headings and rest our case. When we see France spiral into this kind of out of control fear-based tailspin, however (particularly after having gone through it ourselves to such a degree that we're still trying to dig ourselves out of it), we should find it conscripting us to fight against a stupid history that is attempting to repeat itself.

What this move relies upon, as do most attempts to censor speech on the internet, is a misguided fear of the seduction of internet-based communications. You can see this especially in the perhaps well-intentioned proponents of censorship when they speak.

Supporters of the measure say it's critical to preventing future attacks, pointing to the growing number of young French nationals who have joined jihadist movements in Iraq and Syria, as well as aggressive online propaganda campaigns from terrorist groups like ISIS.

"Today, 90 percent of those who swing toward terrorist activities within the European Union do so after visiting the internet," Cazneuves told reporters last week, after presenting the decree to French ministers. "We do not combat terrorism if we do not take measures to regulate the internet."

Just try to implement that mode of logic in any arena that doesn't involve the internet and see how far it gets you. You'll be laughed out of the conversation if you were to say, for instance, "A large percent of those committing terrorist acts within Europe attended a mosque before doing so. We do not combat terrorism if we do not regulate mosques." It misses the point entirely, of course, because it punishes what is largely the innocent while doing very little toactually combat terrorism. We might also find that terrorists largely wear silk, or listen to a certain type of music, or are part of any number of subsets of culture that we wouldn't dream of censoring, regulating, or placing under the watchful eye of a French government that has appeared all too happy to blame everyone for the failures of both their own security apparatus and civilization as a whole. But with the internet? That we'll censor, because the ruling class is still of an age that might find it scary enough to allow it to happen.

Add to this that the blocking attempt will be largely ineffective for those with the will to circumvent it and this essentially amounts to one part grandstanding and two parts setting up a precedent for government interference in speech in the future.

"In light of the recent arrests that have followed the Charlie Hebdo attacks — many of which are clearly overboard — I would say that France's government needs to seriously think about whether this law will stop terrorists, or merely chill speech," Jillian York, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), said in an email to The Verge.

Others question the effectiveness of the measure. Felix Tréguer, of the French online rights group La Quadrature du Net, says the decree risks "over-blocking perfectly legal content," adding that the domain name system (DNS) blocking that it calls for can be easily circumvented. "The measure only gives the illusion that the State is acting for our safety," Tréguer said in a statement published today, "while going one step further in undermining fundamental rights online."

Regarding eLicense, this company is not working on behalf of SEGA in any capacity. We are issuing a Cease & Desist to eLicense and reaching out to YouTube directly to work on resolving this problem.

eLicense is acting independently and Sega intends to take the necessary action to prevent this from happening again.

Please help us in spreading the word wherever you see it online, feel free to link back to this post. Thanks all for reporting and documenting this issue!

Now, there are a couple of confusing factors. eLicense is a Japanese company and it could be possible that Sega Japan has retained its services. If so, the American arm of Sega doesn't seem to be aware of this. Among the evidence in favor of pointing the finger at this eLicense is this tantalizing headline from its website touting its move into ContentID management.

But it could be that Japan's eLicense (which actually spells its name "e-License" on its site) has nothing to do with this debacle. It could be a nearly-identically named American company whose official spelling ("eLicense") matches up with the name listed in Sega's statement.

However, this eLicense -- while apparently in the business of protecting game developers from infringement (its [unarguably lousy looking] client page contains logos for EA, Out of the Park, Pogo and Sports Interactive) -- doesn't have Sega listed as a client either.

No matter which eLicense it is, the claims are bogus. And some gamers/YouTube account holders aren't too happy with the fact that challenging bogus claims puts their accounts at risk. If a challenged claim fails, it's a strike against their account. So, many have just taken the hit and allowed another company to start monetizing their personal uploads.

The good news is that Sega has been very responsive. Many of those affected by these bogus claims have reported that these have been removed. Others are still waiting to have the claims lifted, but it's obvious an effort is being made by Sega to clean up this mess.

Back to the bad news: this is yet another failing of the ContentID system and YouTube's general approach to copyright claims. Nearly any entity can make a claim on someone else's uploaded videos and the burden of proof is passed along almost entirely to the accused. With ContentID, this process is nearly automatic. We've seen multiple cases of abuse in this system by bad actors who have used content that isn't theirs to make bogus claims on hundreds of gameplay videos solely for the purpose of grabbing ad revenue without actually having to earn it.

Sega's past efforts in the IP enforcement field haven't always been on the side of its fans and customers, but it is heartening to see it has made a proactive effort to retract eLicense's unauthorized claims.

from the you-can't-copyright-that dept

I spent this past Sunday spending time with my family and some friends not watching the Super Bowl, so I missed all the commercials and the exciting finish to the game... and the half-time show and the wonder that is the left shark. Still, I heard plenty about it on the internet because apparently the people I follow on Twitter couldn't get enough of the whole shark thing. If you were lucky enough to avoid it entirely, apparently Perry had some shark dancers, and the one on the left appeared to be somewhat... less coordinated than the right one (though Perry's team now claims that the choreography went off exactly as planned).

Either way, the left shark has become a thing. And, so, of course, someone had to go make a 3D printable version of it -- and uploaded plans to Shapeways. Well, until Perry's lawyers stepped in and said nuh uh. Her big time lawyers are claiming that the plans violate Perry's copyright and demanded that Shapeways cease and desist, and provide a "full accounting" of any money they made from it.

Our client recently has learned that you have been involved in the manufacture, sale,
marketing and distribution of merchandise featuring a shark sculpture which embodies and uses
the IP, and that you have displayed this product on your website, www.shapeways.com, in
connection with such sale and distribution.

As you are undoubtedly aware, our client never consented to your use of its copyrighted
work and IP, nor did our client consent to the sale of the infringing product. Your unauthorized
display and sale of this product infringes our client's exclusive rights in numerous ways,
including, but not limited to, infringement of our client's exclusive rights to reproduce, display,
and distribute its copyrighted images under the United States Copyright Act as set forth in 17
U.S.C. §106.

Your infringing conduct entitles our client to significant legal relief against you, which
may include actual damages, statutory damages, and punitive damages, as well as immediate and
permanent injunctive relief.

Shapeways has apparently consented, but it's worth noting that almost all of the above is a bunch of hogwash. As law profess Chris Sprigman pointed out, a shark costume is almost certainly a "useful article" and thus, is not subject to copyright protection:

For purposes of copyright registration,
fanciful costumes will be treated as
useful articles. Costumes serve a dual
purpose of clothing the body and
portraying their appearance. Since
clothing the body serves as a useful
function, costumes fall within the literal
defdtion of useful article. In addition.
the case law consistently treats
I costumes as useful articles, and a
Copyright Office decision to differ
substantially from these court decisions
would appear difficult to justify.

But, for now the files have been taken down, because, really is it worth a lawsuit over the left shark?

We've been pointing out for years that there are going to be a number of intellectual property questions raised by 3D printing. And while this one isn't particularly deep in terms of raising new issues of law, considering it some bizarre foreshadowing of legal disputes to come.

from the no,-it-doesn't-make-any-sense dept

We've seen, over the years, how copyright holders and anti-piracy organizations have continually moved up and down the stack in trying to shut off access to things they don't like. They've sued users for sharing, as well as companies and individuals who build tools that can be used for infringement, of course. Those were the obvious ones. But, lately, they've been targeting hosting providers, registrars, ISPs and ad networks as well. And, apparently, now some are so desperate that they're going after totally unrelated software providers. At least that appears to be the case in Greece, where the Greek Society for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AEPI), sent an angry threat letter to John O'Nolan, who created Ghost, an open source blogging system. Why go after Ghost? Well, apparently because one of the more popular forks of the Popcorn Time streaming system has a blog that uses Ghost. Ghost doesn't host it. Popcorn Time is just using its software. It would take one hell of a ridiculous interpretation of secondary liability to put any liability on Ghost. It would be like going after BIC because someone at Napster wrote notes using one of their pens. But such is the ridiculous state of the anti-piracy world today, where such moves seem sensible.

from the taking-a-good-thing-and-making-it-horrible dept

Running a consumer complaint site has its problems. For one, unhappy companies and individuals will use a variety of methods to get negative reviews taken down, including bogus defamation and copyright claims. So, you safeguard against that by refusing to take reviews down for any reason. Companies will also make threats against reviewers, so you block that by taking that option away from reviewers.

But this all has to be enforced within the limitations of the law. Fortunately, Section 230 deflects a lot of this potential damage by shielding sites from being held liable for third-party content. It's not bulletproof, but it's a start. Of course, some complaint sites go overboard. RipoffReports has itself been criticized for leveraging these protective policies into a revenue stream by charging users high fees for complaint removals.

But not every complaint site exists to provide a valuable service to consumers. Some are just there to provide a soapbox for anyone unhappy about anything. There's no focus, no attempt to vet reviews or reviewers and nothing indicating there's any real oversight of the platform.

Others are run-of-the-mill complaints about bad businesses, bad tenants and other unsatisfactory entities. But it's ComplaintsBureau's actions in retaliation for takedown attempts that really sets it apart from the Yelps of the internet. Adam Steinbaugh recently tweeted out the following link to a Better Business Bureau complaint about (sort of) ComplaintsBureau:

Complaint

Charged monthly membership - did not honor cancellation.

Experian online Credit( www.experien.com) offers a $1 Credit Report &Score. I did that & then same day cancelled my membership - Nine days later (two days after the free trial membership) they charged me a $19.95 monthly fee and when I called on 11/20/2014, they won't refund. With Only 2 days into what they are calling my membership month - and they wont even consider a partial refund. This is slimmy and false advertising...membership programs are such a scam!!!

Desired Settlement $19.95

-----

Business Response Hello

****** *********

Re: Case XXXXXXXX / **** *****

We have tried to go to the BBB site there is no where to post, the url you sent us for that complaint don't work.

This was clearly a false complaint by **** *****. **** ***** was billed for $10,900.00 USD for filing a false DMCA complaint, Complaints Bureau did file a DMCA counter-notification to have the complaint restored. Then Complaints Bureau has sent her bill to Experian on 10/16/2014 that was pass due

Peridocally, we recieve thousands of DMCA takedown requests. Because of people not liking what they read on the site, they attempt less-than-effective ways of trying to get them removed. Many even try to simply file DMCA, without following through with the process. You must validate who you are and your exact information, if you want action to be taken, in your favor. Every piece of information- including photos, videos, text and everything else, is automatically copyrighted when it is submitted to complaints bureau and also becomes the property of complaints bureau, as per our Terms of Use. If you file a DMCA request, you must follow through completely to the very end of the process, otherwise, complaints bureau will file a counter notice to all major search engines and hosts, to have it restored. We will then bill you for $10,900.00. for these costs. Should you violate this clause, as determined by ComplaintsBureau.com in its sole discretion, you will be provided a seventy-two (72) hour opportunity to retract the DMCA request, in question. If the DMCA remains, in whole or in part, you will immediately be billed $10,900.00 USD for legal fees and court costs until such complete costs are determined in litigation. Should these charges remain unpaid for 30 calendar days from the billing date, your unpaid invoice will be sent to our collection agency and will be reported to all consumer credit reporting agencies until paid

The reponse has nothing to do with the complaint, but it appears ComplaintsBureau's owner -- Scott Breitenstein -- rejected a DMCA takedown notice and billed the sender $10,900, following it up by reporting this person to Experian. What it has to do with this particular complaint remains open for debate, but Breitenstein's standard MO prizes aggression over intelligence. The "response" quotes CB's policy in full, as noted under its "Non-Disparagement" heading on its "DMCA Procedures" page (for reasons only known to Breitenstein).

While it's good to know the site will stand up to bogus takedown requests ("If you would like to show up at a jurisdiction of Federal District Court , I would be more than happy to meet you in a courtroom, just bring a toothbrush for the prison sentence." [LOL]), its other practices are more questionable, including its legally-unsound issuance of a bill for $10,900 for rejected DMCA takedowns. This ridiculous amount -- coupled with reporting to credit agencies -- puts ComplaintsBureau in the same shady company with others who have inserted dubious non-disparagement clauses in their Terms of Service pages.

But that isn't the extent of the site (and site owner's) questionable behavior. Steinbaugh notes that a bogus review of him went up shortly after Breitenstein found out Steinbaugh planned to write about the ComplaintsBureau owner's foray into the revenge porn field. Under the infamous "STD Carriers" tag, there's a "review" that includes nude photos of a supposed "carrier." An angry email from the person "reviewed" demanding the removal of these photos was met with this response from Breitenstein:

As pertaining to your balls being bigger than mine, we can see that this is true, by looking at your photos!!! By the way, you didn't send an electronic signature with the proper DMCA notice.You also didn't include your home address, so we can file the proper paperwork, for submission. This makes this notice invalid. If you want to send it to the proper address, send it to : abuse@complaintsbureau.com.

Normally, all content is copyrighted, when submitted to complaints bureau. If you file a DMCA takedown, you need to follow through completely because complaints bureau will file a counter-claim to have it restored and you will be billed $10,900.00 for the costs. Once you file a DMCA, you have 10-14 days to file suit against complaints bureau. If you fail to file, within this time frame, the complaint will be restored, forever. You will be billed $10,900.00 for the costs. You then have 30 days to pay this. If you don't pay in this time frame, we will submit it to a collection agency, thereby affecting your credit. It will also be reported to all of the major credit bureaus.

We are not anything like other site's, that you have had complaints removed from. We are a real and genuine Complaints Bureau. We will not back down to idle threats and pressure to simply remove content. You also might want to consult an attorney, before you make a bad move. We will publish this email, under our legal threats section.

Site against woman whos against revenge porn

Go fuck yourself.

Polite as usual, Dzianis Mohamed Complaints Bureau

Note that the signature (Dzianis Mohamed) doesn't match the email header. Breitenstein appears to use multiple names in an attempt to portray his site as being more legitimate than it actually is -- i.e., an entity with several employees. The response posted to his own site doesn't even bother to strip the telltale email header.

The preemptive strike masquerading as a review of Adam Steinbaugh claimed (among other things) that he destroyed the apartment he was living in and had been arrested for molesting a minor. None of these things are true, but they live on at ComplaintsBureau, as related by the obviously fictional landlord "Sharon Eakins." Steinbaugh noted the oddly coincidental timing of one of his tweets and this review's appearance in his response to the bogus review.

Third, a mere three days before this was posted, I posted Mr. Breitenstein's photo on my Twitter feed and noted that I was going to be writing about this site, because Mr. Breitenstein had the classy idea of running a revenge porn forum here.

It would be the next logical step for the "STD Carriers" tag, considering most of them feature links to ShesAHomewrecker.com, a site bordering on revenge porn, but lacking the volume of explicit photos needed to push it firmly into that territory. It's a "revenge" site alright, but the "porn" part is very limited.

The site's confrontational tone has mistaken "being an aggro asshole" for "protecting consumers' rights." The STD section serves no purpose other than to give some people an excuse to drag others' names through the mud (with pictures). Sure, Section 230 protects ComplaintsBureau, but it won't do much for those posting defamatory reviews on Breitenstein's site.

Between the fake rep names, the fake reviews, the revenge porn-esque "STD Carrier" tag and its own bogus legal threats/defenses (see also: the Dayton, OH-located Breitenstein pretending to be a French company in response to a takedown request), ComplaintsBureau is a disaster masquerading as a consumer's champion. There's a lot of shadiness here, including its $10,900 non-disparagement fee that has very little to do with disparagement and everything to do with heading off people who might have legitimate removal requests. To top things off, ComplaintsBureau claims to be owned by "Vestron Video Media," a defunct home video distributor that ceased operations more than 20 years ago. (Meanwhile, its site registration data lists a company called "The Council of Complaints Bureau, Inc." as the Admin Organization.)

ComplaintsBureau loves complaining customers (and jilted exes) but doesn't care much for people drawing attention to the terrible tactics it deploys. A legitimate consumer complaints site doesn't need bogus fines and expletive-filled letters to protect its content from outside interference. ComplaintsBureau is all noise and no substance, and of use to only Scott Breitenstein.

from the the-only-way-to-fix-my-stupid-is-MORE-STUPID dept

On January 6th, Techdirt published a story covering YouTube takedown abuse perpetrated by Antoni Norman, the developer behind the Pinguy OS Ubuntu/Linux hybrid. Apparently, Norman had engaged in some abusive behavior on the Cup of Linux Mumble chat server, supposedly while intoxicated. This resulted in a 3-month ban from the server and Cup of Linux site. This was extended to a lifetime ban after Norman issued bogus takedown requests on Cup of Linux instructional videos featuring "how to" instructions for setting up Pinguy OS created by Shawn Patrick Ryan (aka "Spatry").

Over the previous few years, Spatry (whose videos were targeted) and Norman enjoyed a friendly relationship. At no point during those previous years did Norman have any issue with Spatry's use of Pinguy OS trademarks. Now, after being banned for his own misconduct, Norman suddenly developed a deep concern for the Pinguy OS logo. The takedowns he issued resulted in Spatry removing 29 videos (6 were directly named in the takedown request) from the Cup of Linux channel.

Given the context, Norman's takedown requests appeared to be nothing more than retaliation for his banning.

Shortly after the post went live, Norman contacted me via email. Obviously unhappy with the unflattering coverage, he proceeded to throw a bunch of legal stuff at the wall in hopes of something sticking. The entire email exchange is included below. Norman's end of the conversation is in italics. Mine is in bold. Any interruptions for commentary will be in brackets and not indented, for clarity.

I've updated the picture with a redacted version. What you've cited doesn't help your argument.

-----

[This is Norman's first legal salvo, a link to a page supposedly meant to prove his point about the publication of private info, but one that actually works against him and for us.

Here's the part I believe Norman thinks helps him:

The legal claim known as "publication of private facts" is a species of invasion of privacy. You commit this kind of invasion of privacy by publishing private facts about an individual, the publication of which would be offensive to a reasonable person.

And here's what directly follows it:

This legal claim can only be successful, however, if the facts in question are not legitimately newsworthy.

In the context of this blog -- which has continuously covered these sorts of abuses for longer than 15 years -- this is newsworthy. The inclusion of Norman's email address in the screenshot of the takedown request verifies the fact that Norman was actually behind the takedowns. Hence: newsworthy. Also, contrary to his claims, not private information, no matter how badly he wishes it to be.]

-----

You do understand what you have published isn't legal? You are sharing a legal on going private matter?

-----

A takedown issued to a public YouTube account isn't a private matter. That Spatry chose to publicize this is his prerogative. Us reporting on it is a matter of public interest because the takedown appears to be retaliatory, rather than justified.

Almost everything in that link you sent involves the exploitation of personal information for advertising goods and services. Techdirt has been around for 15 years and has covered this sort of thing on numerous occasions, so it's not as though your "private matter" is being "exploited."

Your personal email address is a matter of public record. It is in your domain registry. I have redacted it as a FAVOR to you. I also gave you a chance to respond to this and tell your side of the story BEFORE publication. I sent an email to you asking for a response at the same time I sent one to Spatry. You chose not to respond until two days ago and you really haven't offered anything more than complaints with no legal basis.

---------------

[Here are screenshots backing up my claim that I contacted Norman and Spatry roughly simultaneously (within three minutes of each other).]

[Back to Antoni Norman:]

-----

Due to Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), I have to have valid contact information for the domain. What you have published has nothing to do with my domain. As the legal matter you have published is still ongoing by law I can not comment on the case until it has been resolved.

Right. You have to have valid contact information. I'm just showing you that anyone can find your email address, even if I redact it.

And as for the rest, OK. Spatry feels like commenting on it. and we obviously have. So, if you have no comment, so be it.

-----

[Norman digs deeper, citing UK law referring to lawsuits containing a court-ordered injunctions forbidding the publication of certain facts. A YouTube takedown is none of these things.

Furthermore, if Norman was so concerned about the exposure of his email, he could have paid GoDaddy a little extra to hide those details (which he has now done). You have to provide contact information to registrars but you are not required to expose it to the general public.]

Do you have any comments about this? Did you knowingly know you was open to getting sued by publishing private information and discussing an open legal matter?

-----

Have you filed a lawsuit against Spatry or have you only issued a takedown via YouTube? Because what you're linking to applies to ongoing legal action in terms of a TRIAL, not an action involving a third-party tool to report infringement.

Also, you're dealing with the wrong jurisdiction.

-----

[Norman keeps supplying these two URLs as if they're suddenly going to turn into relevant legal precedent. As has been confirmed by Spatry, no further legal action has been pursued by Norman, so no stretch of the imagination will turn an automated, third-party takedown system wholly unrelated to civil actions into a lawsuit where actual "contempt of court" charges may be levelled.]

-----

Do you have a legal department contact Ican to forward to my legal representative to talk about damages?

-----

There is contact information available at the website.

-----

Can you just send me the email/website? I can't find anything on the site. If not I will just get my legal representative to find it.

-----

Do that.

-----

His final email contained a few more vague threats and the sort of apology no one means when they say it.

OK thanks. I will forward these emails to her tomorrow when the office opens and we will go from there. Any info you can give on how she can contact your legal representative will help speed things along.

Honestly I am sorry you have been dragged in the middle of this, but you posting that article has impede the case and made things a more complicated.

This post will be updated if we hear from Norman's legal rep, but I'm not holding my breath. Norman has no legal basis for his claims of "impeding a case" or "publishing private information" or anything else he threw out during our conversation. What it looks like is an attempt to intimidate Techdirt into issuing an apology or pulling the article... or whatever. Norman's obviously unhappy but he seems unsure of where to focus his efforts.

What is for certain is that Norman is either unwilling or unable to learn from his mistakes. He was given a chance to salvage his reputation but instead has decided to double down on matches and accelerant. He's a respected developer, but he's swiftly shedding what's left of that respect with an unfortunate proclivity for retaliation and bluster.

“Our recent relaunch of the site has brought it a lot more attention, and as a result, we’re currently thinking through ways to better balance making this information available for valuable study, research, and journalism, while still addressing the concerns of people whose information appears in the database.”

[....]

“As a project, we’ve always worked to strike that balance, for example by removing personally identifying information. Removing notice pages from search engine results is the latest step in that balancing process,” Holland tells us.

“It may or may not prove to be permanent, but for now it’s the step that makes the most sense as we continue to think things through,” he adds.

Meanwhile, Chilling Effects founder, Wendy Seltzer, seems to insist that this was an implementation mistake and that the team never meant to remove the whole domain:

So it's a little unclear what happened here. You'd think the folks at the Berkman Center and associated with Chilling Effects know how to properly set up a robots.txt file if they want to just exclude certain pages.

Either way it seems like a massive blow for transparency, and in many ways is a "chilling effect" of its own. It's no secret that many legacy copyright system supporters absolutely hate Chilling Effects and the transparency it brings. Sandra Aistars, of the Copyright Alliance, referred to the site as "repugnant" in Congressional testimony just a few months ago. Yes, providing transparency on censorship is "repugnant." Says a lot about the Copyright Alliance, doesn't it?

Others have made similar statements in the past. A few years ago, a lawyer tried to block Google from forwarding DMCA takedown notices to Chilling Effects, arguing that passing along those notices makes Google "potentially liable for the infringement" in passing on the notices. Others have argued that the takedown notices themselves are subject to copyright and have tried to block them from appearing on Chilling Effects.

The concern, they claim, is twofold: First, the details in the takedown notice often demonstrate where infringing content actually is. That's especially true for notices to Google or Twitter (two of the bigger suppliers of notices to Chilling Effects) who are not hosting the content, but are merely linking to it (i.e. they are "information location tools.") In those cases, the links may get removed from the services in question, but remain on the internet itself. The second concern, as put forth by Aistars, is that people issuing DMCA takedown notices are sensitive little flowers, and publishing the fact that they're trying to take down content opens them up to harassment and abuse.

Neither of these arguments survives much scrutiny. The idea that anyone is trawling through Chilling Effects seeking unauthorized content is fairly unlikely. And, really, if people are, those aren't exactly the kind of people who are then going to turn around and start willfully forking over cash to the legacy entertainment industry for that same content. The Chilling Effects haters, no doubt, would argue that this is why it's important to remove Chilling Effects itself from Google, because people searching on Google might not find the originals, but would then find the takedown notices with links back to the originals. Except, that seems unlikely. First, as has been detailed many times, people looking for unauthorized copies of works tend not to use Google that much, since it's not very good for that purpose, and other tools tend to be much more effective. Second, the kinds of information in a takedown notice itself aren't likely to trigger a high result for someone looking for an unauthorized download. Terms like "free" and "download" are unlikely to be found on such documents.

The other argument -- that being exposed for sending takedowns leads to harassment -- also seems bogus. We've seen little indication that people get that upset about legitimate takedowns. It's the excessive, abusive and censorious takedowns that really seem to concern people. And those are the ones that need transparency the most.

Hopefully, the folks at Chilling Effects rethink this decision and stick by their own stated philosophy of working "to provide as much transparency as possible" about DMCA takedown notices. It would seem that blocking a key search tool from accessing the data goes directly against that principle.

from the so-much-power-in-one-little-symbol dept

Another bogus takedown targeting a prominent YouTube personality. In other words, business as usual for the world's largest video platform. This time it's Jacksepticeye, a very popular creator of videogame-related videos, most of which utilize in-game footage, "Let's Play"-style, as well as plenty of related (and unrelated) commentary. At the risk of sounding like The Narrator in "Fight Club," I know Jacksepticeye because my boys know Jacksepticeye. [There is no generation gap because of cultural osmosis. Discuss.]

One of YouTube's most known gamer guys, Jacksepticeye, took to his Twitter account on Wednesday morning citing copyright claims against him. The claims were made by Outfit7 Limited, the entertainment company that created the Talking Tom and Friends franchise.

Here are the tweets:

Apparently one of my Evie and Talking Angela vids copyright infringed on something and if I don't acknowledge it my account will be deleted

Apparently one of my Evie and Talking Angela vids copyright infringed on something and if I don't acknowledge it my account will be deleted

This wasn't some normal copyright strike either, I can't get into my youtube account now unless I answer copyright questions

So @Outfit7 are the ones who flagged the video. The owners of Talking Angela because I had her talking to Evie :/

Now, the question of fair use will be addressed here because the limitations of YouTube's system won't. Firing up an app to talk to a bot isn't copyright infringement. The app will talk to whoever will chat with it (and vice versa, in terms of CleverBot). Recording this interaction doesn't violate Outfit7's copyright anymore than someone recording their siblings/kids talking to it. The app exists to talk and presumably Outfit7 would like more people to download the Talking Angela app because in-app purchases is a numbers game. The more people that try it out, the more likely the chance that some of them will start tossing money into the company's revenue stream.

So, why take it down? Who knows? But considering the outcome of this situation, it appears it may have been a mistake -- albeit the sort of mistake that is both a) far too common and b) engenders ill will towards the entity who screwed up.

This is Jacksepticeye's latest tweet on the takedown.

The copyright strike against me has been retracted and everything is back to normal :D

The copyright strike against me has been retracted and everything is back to normal :D

Now, this doesn't necessarily mean Outfit7 came to its senses and walked back its erroneous takedown. It could be that YouTube pulled the strike because it wasn't actually an infringing video. But the former is much more likely than the latter, although there's been no public confirmation from Outfit7 itself.

The video itself still remains dead, at least at its original URL. Perhaps Jack will have to re-upload or he has decided to keep the video offline until he hears more from Outfit7… just in case. Either way, copyright gets in the way of creation again, and someone who makes a living on YouTube came this much closer to losing his source of income -- not the sort of thing that exactly endears IP rights to the general public.